Hi, Jeff, Scott

Are you planning to fix this before 2.4.22-final ?

Thanks.

Felix.

Jeff Garzik wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:19:25AM -0700, Feldman, Scott wrote:
>  
>
>>>I've also noticed that the number of hard_start_xmit failures 
>>>in e1000 has increased significantly in version 5.1.13-k1. In 
>>>version 5.0.43-k1 the number of failures was much smaller.
>>>      
>>>
>>Interesting.  Felix, would you undo the change[1] below in 5.1.13-k1 and
>>see what happens?  With the change below, 5.1.13 would be more
>>aggressive on Tx cleanup, so we'll be quicker waking the queue than
>>before. 
>>
>>-scott
>>
>>        for(i = 0; i < E1000_MAX_INTR; i++)
>>-               if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) &&
>>+               if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) &
>>                   !e1000_clean_tx_irq(adapter))
>>                        break;
>>
>>[1] Something still bothers me about this new form where we're mixing a
>>bit-wise operator with logical operands.  Should this bother me?
>>    
>>
>
>It doesn't matter to the compiler if you make it explicit:
>
>	unsigned int rx_work = e1000_clean_rx_irq();
>	unsigned int tx_work = e1000_clean_tx_irq();
>	if (!rx_work && !tx_work)
>		break;
>
>
>  
>